Spin Cycle: After recently being aquired by BuzzMedia—owner of sites like Stereogum, Brooklyn Vegan, the esteemed KimKardashian.com, and the zombie version of former Gawker music blog Idolator—the new owners of Spin magazine (which has looked especially great in the last few months) decided it would be in the magazine's best interest to lay off the Spin Editor-in-Chief Steve Kandell, as well as associate editor Melissa Giannini, and news editor Devon Maloney. This raises the question as to whether or not Spin's recent investigation into America's bath salts epidemic was shortsighted, in that it didn't extend to the magazine's new ownership. [Billboard]

Gawker, Three Hours Later: Gawker.com recently scooped up former Good senior editor Cord Jefferson, who has filed some of the site's best pieces as of late, like the one on Black Atheism and a before-the-backlash piece about the unsavory anti-gay practices of Chick-Fil-A. Jefferson—who's been busy freelancing for places like The Nation as well—will be the site's "West Coast editor" and a Gizmodo contributor. He broke the news himself on Twitter on Friday. [@CordJefferson]

The Nu-Baby-Cuddling Nick Denton Cares About Babies: Making good on Gawker Media publisher Nick Denton's promise to care about babies and not eat them force them to write eight posts a day, the company will now start covering "100% of medical insurance, including for spouses & families" notes editorial ringleader somethingorother Scott Kidder. They're hiring, but if you're reading this, you probably have little interest in any of the positions they're hiring for. [@skidder]

Bludgeoned with Blodget: Henry Blodget got profiled by the Wall Street Journal's Keach Hagey. This is two years after Bloomberg Businessweek profiled him (and a few months after the Times profile of B.I. star Joe Wiesenthal). The title of it? "Blodget's Second Act," which is not a reference to his forthcoming Catskills residency with Eliot Spitzer. How many times does this man get a second act? One could suggest that Business Insider is closer to a second act itself, which would make this Blodget's third? Whatever, it's their accounting, not mine. But, worth noting: "The site has yet to turn much of a profit." For what it's worth, Hagey's piece is a quick, concise, good read. [WSJ]

Romenesko Empire: Outside digital director Nicholas Jackson notes that "Romenesko has made the big-time," referring to the giant, ugly skin covering his site right now. That said, cash money is cash money. May the Dread Pirate Ship Romenesko sell those CPMs to his heart's content. [@NBJ914 | Romenesko]

Like Old L.A. Times: A memo/press release recently sent out to the newsroom/media reporter pool from the L.A. Times beams with excitement at the hiring of three new reporters. Three! New! Reporters! They're trying to beef up their entertainment news presence. Romenesko has the full memo up. [Romenesko]'

Oh, Andy: Former Huffington Post contributor, 'The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air' co-creator, National Book Awards host for two years running, and now, New Yorker humor blogger Andy Borowitz is upsetting people who don't get his humor, per the usual. Troll the good fight, sir. [@randlechris]

n+fun: Village Voice music editor Maura Johnston notes a line from the new Alix Kates Shulman book, Menage: "This is the Times, not n+1." This is both as oddly irritating as it is perfectly resonant. [@maura]

This Week, In TinaWeek: Newsweek's cover this week trolls approximately half of America in a move they likely want construed as at least moderately partisan. Having already painted Obama as the Gayest President Ever, they're looking to paint Mitt Romney as the Wimpiest Presidential Candidate Ever. Mother Jones' Adam Serwer noted it as "100 percent pure, unrefined, uncut, #dumbgeist." [@AdamSerwer]

TinaWeek Goes Meta: As if that weren't enough, there's also a feature by former French Vogue Editor-in-Chief Juliet Joan Buck about how she was "duped" by the first lady of Syria when profiling her for Vogue. The profile—which ended up costing her the job at Vogue she's held since she was 23—was written before the world learned about the extent to which Syria's dictatorship is evil, and was removed from Vogue's website three months after it was published. The Newsweek piece ends with the words "Juliet Joan Buck is writing a memoir"—which, you ain't kidding—and a post-script with quotes from Anna Wintour and the PR firm that baited Buck. Lesson: This is what happens when you take evil flacks at their word. [Newsweek]

Know anything more about these items? Know anything more about anything? Please send your tips, Animals-Walking-Into-a-Bar Jokes, legal threats, Nikki Finke fan mail, and Bob Dylan quotes right here.

Happy Monday.

fkamer@observer.com | @weareyourfek

Mr. Beaujon (Image via TBD.com)

Beginning next month, Andrew Beaujon will join the Poynter Institute as a media reporter, filling out the void left when Jim Romenesko quit late last year. Mr. Beaujon is currently the arts and entertainment editor at TBD.com, a Washington D.C. news site.

Prior to TBD, Mr. Beaujon worked at Washington City Paper, Martha Stewart Living and SPIN. He is the author of Body Piercing Saved My Life, a nonfiction book about Christian rock.

Reached by phone this afternoon, Mr. Beaujon told the Observer that "just trying to live through" the changes in the industry fueled his interest in the media beat. Recently, he's written about Dan Snyder's legal battle with the Washington City Paper, staff buyouts at the Washington Post, and the local media ecosystem of Alexandria.

Mr. Beaujon said he pitched Poynter editors a blog/column that wouldn't look much like Mr. Romenesko's eponymous vertical. In between aggregated links, it will be a reported blog that "tells the stories of media." It will also define "media" more broadly.

"I'm interested in community media, ethnic media, overseas media, blogs and online publications," Mr. Beaujon said. "I try to cast a pretty wide net."

He will work out of Washington, D.C., where he lives with his wife and two children.

"Unless I can get a space in Jeff Sonderman's apartment," he joked.

Weber contests the Times' claims that their reporting makes "it possible to finally piece together the Horizon's last hours," and that the events they narrate have heretofore "escaped intense scrutiny." Weber alleges that the AP had obtained and reported on the same documents earlier. After the rig exploded, the AP appointed an oil spill editor, put 50 regional reporters on the story, and hired additional reporters.

Weber comes right out with a potential motive for the Times' gratuitous back-patting:

The timing of the Times story is interesting --six days before the end of the calendar year. It seems to me they want to have the last word of the year on the oil spill, perhaps as a nod to the Pulitzer board in hopes the board has a bout of amnesia too. But the Times doesn't own the history books.

kstoeffel@observer.com :: @kstoeffel

First out of the gate was Gawker.com, whose Ryan Tate offered a list of the Most Humiliating Moments in Vanity Fair's Arthur Sulzberger Profile. Next up, PoynterOnline's Jim Romenesko, who came away with the impression that "Sulzberger seems clever enough, but he fails to impress."

A few hours later, Portfolio's Mixed Media blogger Jeff Bercovici offered one of his patented Deep Read posts, in which he called back to Ken Auletta's 2005 New Yorker piece (alluded to in Mr. Bowden's piece) that shared both Mr. Bowden's subject and headline and wrote, "If Ken Auletta's December 2005 New Yorker profile of Arthur Sulzberger Jr. was what persuaded the New York Times publisher not to cooperate with any more reporters for awhile, then there's scant chance Mark Bowden's 11,000-word Vanity Fair portrait will change his mind." Editor & Publisher's E&P Pub blog (you know, where awful news of layoffs and newspaper closures are given a breezier, bloggier treatment) wondered if Mr. Sulzberger is, The Incredible Shrinking Man? (EXTRA: Newspaper Publisher Trapped In Over-Determined '50s B-Movie Metaphor!) Via Amtrak's Northeast Regional from Boston, The Phoenix's Adam Reilly implored readers, "Whatever your reading plans are for the next few days, make sure they include this outstanding Vanity Fair profile of NY Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr."

Soon, Politico's Michael Calderone weighed in by asking, Can Sulzberger save the Times? (Yes! Um, no? What was the question again?)

The next day (Tuesday, March 31), The Guardian hosted Dan Kennedy's Who killed the New York Times? (Judy Miller in the library with the WMDs?), in which the author offered a round-up of reactions to Mr. Bowden's piece and this bit of criticism: "The problem is that Bowden can't tell us how things might have been different with more visionary leadership. No one can."

That same day, Slate's Jack Shafer, who got right to the point with the headline Are Times Publishers Born Stupid?, reached all the way back to Adolph S. Ochs and ends with a glancing blow to Metro desk boy wonder A. G. Sulzberger.

On the third day (Wednesday, April 1), New York Times executive editor Bill Keller decided to send a letter to Vanity Fair's editor, which he kindly "cc'd" to Jim Romenesko, and, by extension the segment of the media world (a) still working; (b) still able to afford Internet access; or (c) curious enough about their former industry to check Romenesko from the library Internet terminal before taking a nap in the reading room and washing themselves in the public bathroom. That same day, Vivian Schiller, former digital chief of The Times' Web site, sent her own letter about Mr. Bowden's story to Mr. Romenesko, in which she called the article "wildly imbalanced."

The next day (the fourth for those trying to keep up), The Observer's John Koblin picked up Mr. Keller's letter for Vanity Fair and looked at how The New York Times Puts Up Its Dukes. Also on the fourth day, the Daily Beast's Eric Alterman pulled a Chris Crocker by pleading, "Stop Picking on Pinch." (Mr. Alterman also had a round-up of links in case you missed Mr. Kennedy's.) Business Insider's Nicholas Carlson added NYT Publisher "Elicits Not Admiration So Much As Pity" to the conversation.

What about Twitterers, you ask? (Why do you always ask that?) What were they tweeterering about Mr. Bowden?

Well, NYU's Jay Rosen summarized the 11,000-word story with "'The Times is platform agnostic.' Mark Bowden's Sulzberger piece in Vanity Fair explains why that statement is ... off." Rodney Barnes, whose bio describes him as Toronto-based "Ryerson J-Schooler and aspiring literary journalist," noted, "'Journalism sells ... simply isn't true. Advertising sells, journalism costs.' - Mark Bowden at the NYT on Sulzberger." Mr. Barnes' countryman David Hayes called Mr. Bowden's piece, the "Must-read media story in Vanity Fair by Mark Bowden." Ad Age's Ken Wheaton tweeted, "Excellent Vanity Fair piece by Mark "Blackhawk Down" Bowden about NYTimes' Arthur Sulzberger" (Mr. Wheaton supplied no period—it's Twitter.) Confusingly, before the piece hit the Web, Editor & Publisher's Greg Mitchell wrote, "Mark Bowden in upcoming Atlantic profiles Arthur Sulzberger, who would not talk to him--or allow staffers to do it (but many did)." Point of clarification: Mr. Bowden ended his exclusive contract with The Atlantic in October 2008. (Go gently on Mr. Mitchell: Last week he wrote a column headlined, My First Day on Twitter.)

Today is the fifth day since Mr. Bowden's piece appeared online, and in the twitchy, Twittery new-media landscape, that makes it more or less as old as a Dead Sea Scroll. What can media watchers expect? Maybe Mr. Bowden or his editor, Graydon Carter, will come out in defense of their piece? Maybe Michael Wolff has something to add? (Nope. His Newser blog is currently occupying itself with thoughts of 20-something blondes—not that one, smartass!) Will Arianna Huffington or Tina Brown take it upon themselves to comment? (Ms. Brown is more concerned with whether the first lady is a talk show hostess or something.) Can David Carr add something? Or Howie Kurtz? Jon Friedman? Little help? There's still some skin on this ball! Hello?

In the meantime, what about another—even more insanely detailed—round-up of links? Hey, you got it. You're welcome.

The future of the country's leading newspaper—which as recently as early January was called into doubt by The Atlantic's Michael Hirschorn—is touched on in this week's Time magazine cover story by Walter Isaacson, which was updated online after it appeared late last week with following:

Today, The Times' Richard Pérez-Peña wrote Resilient Strategy for Times Despite Toll of a Recession, in which he floated out the "'last-man-standing' strategy," which he quotes New York Times Company President and Chief Executive Janet L. Robinson describing as follows: "As other newspapers cut back on international and national coverage, or cease operations, we believe there will be opportunities for The Times to fill that void." Of course, that's not a plot to survive the recession. Rather, it presupposes The Times definitely surviving the recession, so it's really just an argument for why The Times will still be on top after the dust clears.

Over at Jim Romenesko's Poynter Institute-sponsored media blog, there's a memo written by American Lawyer and Brill's Content founder Steve Brill, which was presented to Times Company representatives including Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. Mr. Romenesko calls the memo "Brill's Secret Plan to Save the New York Times and Journalism Itself, but it also might be called TimesSelect II: The Re-Selecting.

Writes Mr. Brill:

Mr. Brill also suggests readers pay $55 a year for all-they-can read nytimes.com access and proposed the WNYC/PBS pledge-drive-ready slogan "An Old-fashioned Tradition is Back: Read the Times for 15 Cents a Day." (Sounds like Bill Murray's old "Listener Supported Radio" skit from National Lampoon's That's Not Funny, That's Sick! to us.)

Observer alum Gabriel Sherman weighs in with a piece on The Big Money called Micro Economics with the subheadline "Why Steve Jobs and micropayments won't save the media." Writes Mr. Sherman:

Meanwhile, in New York magazine, Will Leitch looks at Twitter and finds The Times news-gathering hegemony being pecked at by the ubiquitous blurt-blog platform that some evangelists think can replace traditional journalism (while, Mr. Leitch points out, also failing to make any money):

Beating The Times by 15 minutes! (The Times' Lede blog took notice of this, too.) Of course, The Times had all sorts of relevant details, like the fact that U.S. Airways flight 1549 didn't so much crash as land safely with all passengers escaping mostly unharmed (probably something family members of passengers might want to know), but, man, it took The Times 15 whole minutes to get on the story.

So, does that mean manolantern will be "the last man standing"? Glp.

A tough question for sure, and the lawyer-novelist-interior design consultant -turned-advice columnist has some choice advice ("I’d avoid a direct reference to her chest and make a general-purpose compliment instead, like 'You’re looking awfully well today.' She’ll understand the coded message..."). But what if a Web site you're acquainted with has some work done? What are you to do then?

Journalists who click on Jim Romenesko's Poynter Institute-hosted media news blog may notice that site has undergone a dramatic redesign. This weekend, Gawker's Hamilton Nolan noted the new look and wrote:

Bill Mitchell, the Poynter Institute's director, explained via email that the site's facelift is far from an overnight change. As far back as December 14, 2007, the Institute's been floating design concepts and soliciting user comments.

"Among the 38 comments posted to that item and sent via e-mail was the suggestion that we make it easier to find Romenesko from elsewhere on the site," Mr. Mitchell told Media Mob. "We paid attention. We made Jim part of the main navigation of the site. Since then, about 1,100 people have joined our alpha group, many of them chiming in with suggestions."

Why redesign now? "We were overdue. We've added a lot of content to the site since we last did a significant redesign nearly six years ago. We've been hearing from people for a long time that there's a lot of valuable stuff on the site, but they have a lot of trouble actually finding it. We've tried to address that with a cleaner, clearer design and navigation. We've also introduced advertising—both help-wanted ads for journalists and display ads—and needed to do a better job incorporating those ads in our pages."

As with any redesign, the Institute risks alienating its core readers. In 2002, Mr. Romenesko's blog underwent a redesign that offended many longtime readers. As Mr. Romenesko told Media Mob, "This is the third major redesign of my page and it's safe to say that all of them were heavily criticized when launched. Many readers loved this version of my site and screamed when it was updated, which is hard to believe now." (Remember how upset readers were when Salon redesigned in 2005? Of course you don't.)

"We hope readers/users will appreciate the improvements, and feedback so far indicates that a lot of them do," Mr. Mitchell wrote. "We know we can't please everybody, though, and will do our best to listen to critics, especially critics with specific issues or suggestions."

Even if they just say, "You’re looking awfully well today."

It's not a redesign.

"No, that's our default when our damn unreliable servers go down," he wrote in response to a question from Media Mob.

Since Portfolio is a general interest business magazine, Mr. Raines offers a one paragraph history of journalism, perfect for our blog-addled Google-dummed age:

The closest Mr. Raines got to Mr. Romenesko was an iChat window, "Since he inhabits a virtual world, it was a virtual interview." Eight years ago, New York's Simon Dumenco actually spent some time in Mr. Romenesko's presence, back when Mr. Romenesko was still hosting his media news site independently. Here's how Mr. Dumenco described Mr. Romenesko's operation circa the turn of the Century:

We understand he's since moved and upgraded to Wifi.

Here's a snapshot of Ms. Fowler's big weekend (as compiled with the help of the redoubtable Jim Romenesko):

Saturday: The Los Angeles Times' James Rainey profiled Ms. Fowler calling her a "61-year-old self-described 'failed writer' and amateur Web journalist helped create two of the most unexpected moments in the 2008 election." (Media Mob previously noted this piece here.)

Sunday: The New York Times' Jacques Steinberg wrote an "Ideas and Trends" column for the Week in Review in which he quotes Newsweek's Jonathan Alter say Ms. Fowler's antics "makes it very difficult for the rest of us to do our jobs... If you don’t have trust, you don’t get good stories. If someone comes along and uses deception to shatter that trust, she has hurt the very cause of a free flow of public information that she claims she wants to assist." Mr. Steinberg also quotes producer-turned-blogger Jan Hamsher saying, “It’s hurting America that journalists consider their first loyalty to be to their subjects, and not to the people they’re reporting for." (Old Media vs. New, round 400: This time it's personal!)

The Independent calls Ms. Fowler "a poster girl for this new era of political journalism" and notes her "soft, musing style that has won her numerous followers... she blurred a line that many in traditional US journalism have been ferociously trying to hold, against all the odds – namely the line between objective reporter and a partisan."

Today: The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz weighs in with his column: "Fowler is part of a new breed -- citizen journalist, liberal advocate, agent provocateur."

Tomorrow: Book deal? Daily Show with Jon Stewart interview? MSNBC show? Tune in and see.